Electromechanical fastener driving apparatuses (also referred to herein as a “driver,” “gun” or “device”) known in the art often weigh generally less than 15 pounds and may be configured for an entirely portable operation. Contractors and homeowners commonly use power-assisted devices and means of driving fasteners into wood. These power-assisted means of driving fasteners can be either in the form of finishing fastener systems used in baseboards or crown molding in house and household projects, or in the form of common fastener systems that are used to make walls or hang sheathing onto same. These systems can be portable (i.e., not connected or tethered to an air compressor or wall outlet) or non-portable.
The most common fastener driving apparatus uses a source of compressed air to actuate a guide assembly to push a fastener into a substrate. For applications in which portability is not required, this is a very functional system and allows rapid delivery of fasteners for quick assembly. A disadvantage is that it does however require that the user purchase an air compressor and associated air-lines in order to use this system. A further disadvantage is the inconvenience of the device being tethered (through an air hose) to an air compressor.
To solve this problem, several types of portable fastener drivers operate off of fuel cells. Typically, these guns have a guide assembly in which a fuel is introduced along with oxygen from the air. The subsequent mixture is ignited with the resulting expansion of gases pushing the guide assembly and thus driving the fastener into the workpieces. This design is complicated and is far more expensive than a standard pneumatic fastener gun. Both electricity and fuel are required as the spark source derives its energy typically from batteries. The chambering of an explosive mixture of fuel, the use of consumable fuel cartridges, the loud report and the release of combustion products are all disadvantages of this solution. Systems such as these are already in existence and are sold commercially to contractors under the Paslode™ name.
Another commercially available solution is a fastener gun that uses electrical energy to drive a stapler or wire brad. Such units typically use a solenoid to drive the fastener (such as those commercially available under the Arrow™ name or those which use a ratcheting spring system such as the Ryobi™ electric stapler). These units are limited to short fasteners (typically 1″ or less), are subject to high reactionary forces on the user and are limited in their repetition rate. The high reactionary force is a consequence of the comparatively long time it takes to drive the fastener into the substrate. Additionally, because of the use of mechanical springs or solenoids, the ability to drive longer fasteners or larger fasteners is severely restricted, thus relegating these devices to a limited range of applications. A further disadvantage of the solenoid driven units is they often must be plugged into the wall in order to have enough voltage to create the force needed to drive even short fasteners.
A final commercially available solution is to use a flywheel mechanism and clutch the flywheel to an anvil that drives the fastener. Examples of such tools can be found under the Dewalt™ name. This tool is capable of driving the fasteners very quickly and in the longer sizes. The primary drawback to such a tool is the large weight and size as compared to the pneumatic counterpart. Additionally, the drive mechanism is very complicated, which gives a high retail cost in comparison to the pneumatic fastener gun.
Clearly based on the above efforts, a need exists to provide portable solution to driving fasteners which is unencumbered by fuel cells or air hoses. Additionally, the solution ought to provide a low reactionary feel, be able to drive full size fasteners and be simple, cost effective and robust in operation.
The prior art teaches several additional ways of driving a fastener or staple. The first technique is based on a multiple impact design. In this design, a motor or other power source is connected to an impact anvil through either a lost motion coupling or other device. This allows the power source to make multiple impacts on the fastener to drive it into the workpiece. The disadvantages in this design include increased operator fatigue since the actuation technique is a series of blows rather than a single drive motion. A further disadvantage is that this technique requires the use of an energy absorbing mechanism once the fastener is seated. This is needed to prevent the anvil from causing excessive damage to the substrate as it seats the fastener. Additionally, the multiple impact designs are not very efficient because of the constant motion reversal and the limited operator production speed.
A second design that is taught in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,589,588, 5,503,319, and 3,172,121 includes the use of potential energy storage mechanisms (in the form of a mechanical spring). In these designs, the spring is cocked (or activated) through an electric motor. Once the spring is sufficiently compressed, the energy is released from the spring into the anvil (or fastener driving piece), thus pushing the fastener into the substrate. Several drawbacks exist to this design. These include the need for a complex system of compressing and controlling the spring, and in order to store sufficient energy, the spring must be very heavy and bulky. Additionally, the spring suffers from fatigue, which gives the tool a very short life. Finally, metal springs must move a significant amount of mass in order to decompress, and the result is that these low-speed fastener drivers result in a high reactionary force on the user.
To improve upon this design, an air spring has been used to replace the mechanical spring. U.S. Pat. No. 4,215,808 teaches of compressing air within a guide assembly and then releasing the compressed air by use of a gear drive. This patent overcomes some of the problems associated with the mechanical spring driven fasteners described above, but is subject to other limitations. One particular troublesome issue with this design is the safety hazard in the event that the anvil jams on the downward stroke. If the fastener jams or buckles within the feeder and the operator tries to clear the jam, he is subject to the full force of the anvil, since the anvil is predisposed to the down position in all of these types of devices. A further disadvantage presented is that the fastener must be fed once the anvil clears the fastener on the backward stroke. The amount of time to feed the fastener is limited and can result in jams and poor operation, especially with longer fasteners. A further disadvantage to the air spring results from the need to have the ratcheting mechanism as part of the anvil drive. This mechanism adds weight and causes significant problems in controlling the fastener drive since the weight must be stopped at the end of the stroke. This added mass slows the fastener drive stroke and increases the reactionary force on the operator. Additionally, because significant kinetic energy is contained within the air spring and piston assembly the unit suffers from poor efficiency. This design is further subject to a complicated drive system for coupling and uncoupling the air spring and ratchet from the drive train which increases the production cost and reduces the system reliability.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,423 again teaches of an air spring that is compressed and then released to drive the fastener. The drive or compression mechanism used in this device is limited in stroke and thus is limited in the amount of energy which can be stored into the air stream. In order to provide sufficient energy in the air stream to achieve good performance, this patent teaches use of a gas supply which preloads the guide assembly at a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure. Furthermore, the compression mechanism is bulky and complicated. In addition, the timing of the motor is complicated by the small amount of time between the release of the piston and anvil assembly from the drive mechanism and its subsequent re-engagement. Additionally, U.S. Pat. No, 5,720,423 teaches that the anvil begins in the retracted position, which further complicates and increases the size of the drive mechanism. Furthermore, because of the method of activation, these types of mechanisms as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,720,423 and 4,215,808 must compress the air to full energy and then release off the tip of the gear while under full load. This method of compression and release causes severe mechanism wear. As will be discussed below, the present disclosure overcomes these and other limitations in the prior art use of air springs.
A third means for driving a fastener that is taught includes the use of flywheels as energy storage means. The flywheels are used to actuate a hammering anvil that impacts the fastener. This design is described in detail in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,042,036, 5,511,715, and 5,320,270. One major drawback to this design is the problem of coupling the flywheel to the driving anvil. This prior art teaches the use of a friction clutching mechanism that is both complicated, heavy and subject to wear. Further limiting this approach is the difficulty in controlling the energy in the fastener system. The mechanism requires enough energy to drive the fastener, but retains significant energy in the flywheel after the drive is complete. This further increases the design complexity and size of such prior art devices.
A fourth means for driving a fastener is taught in the present inventors' U.S. Pat. No. 8,079,504, which uses a compression on demand system with a magnetic detent. This system overcomes many of the advantages of the previous systems but still has its own set of disadvantages which include the need to retain a very high pressure for a short period of time. This pressure and subsequent force necessitate the use of high strength components and more expensive batteries and motors.
A fifth means is taught in pending U.S. Pat. No. 8,733,610, which uses a vacuum to drive a fastener drive assembly. This clearly has its own advantages over the previous systems but has its own set of disadvantages, including the need to retain a seal against air pressure. This sealing requirement necessitates the use of more accurate cylinders and pistons, thus contributing to the manufacturing cost.
A sixth means taught in U.S. Pat. No. 8,602,282 clearly teaches a gas spring wherein the gas spring traverses the entire stroke of the drive anvil and wherein the spring is energized during the entire stroke. This means is similar to what is used in US Patent Application Publication 2012/0325887 wherein a flywheel or gyrating mass has been added to what is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 8,602,282. Both of these patents clearly have sets of disadvantages when it comes to safety, as the anvil or hammer mechanism is fully powered under the down stroke. Additionally, these references teach of a gas spring drive that remains connected the anvil the entire time of operation and thus has efficiency losses and wear due to seal issues. Furthermore, the integration of a clutch and a gyrating mass causes spool up issues and can further reduce efficiency.
All of the currently available devices suffer from one or more the following disadvantages:                Complex, expensive and unreliable designs. Fuel powered mechanisms such as Paslode™ achieve portability but require consumable fuels and are expensive. Rotating flywheel designs such as Dewalt™ have complicated coupling or clutching mechanisms based on frictional means. This adds to their expense.        Poor ergonomics. The fuel powered mechanisms have loud combustion reports and combustion fumes. The multiple impact devices are fatiguing and are noisy.        Non-portability. Traditional fastener guns are tethered to a fixed compressor and thus must maintain a separate supply line.        High reaction force and short life. Mechanical spring driven mechanisms have high tool reaction forces because of their long fastener drive times. Additionally, the springs are not rated for these types of duty cycles leading to premature failure. Furthermore, consumers are unhappy with their inability seat longer fasteners or work with denser wood species.        Safety issues. The prior art “air spring” and heavy spring driven designs suffer from safety issues for longer fasteners since the predisposition of the anvil is towards the substrate. During jam clearing, this can cause the anvil to strike the operators hand.        Low efficiency as a result of the need to spin up a large gyrating mass or gas springs which have strokes that are similar in length to the drive stroke of the fastener.        
In light of these various disadvantages, there exists the need for a fastener driving apparatus that overcomes these various disadvantages of the prior art and can give a similar user experience to a pneumatic tool, while still retaining the benefits of the prior art.